Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Jet2.com ONLY

JPears

Pom- Novice is being sarcy. Jet2won't mention the burst tyre because it isn't in their favour or interest.
And yes, airlines are very economic with the truth, frequently.

NoviceAngel

JPears wrote: »

Pom- Novice is being sarcy.....

I'm still learning from one of the best

Exactly though, I remember a case where an aircraft had been initially delayed by technical defect by 3h 10 mins, then because of a genuine EC that caused a further 30 min delay, they denied the claim all standard J2 baloney

PomBear

Sorry, missed the sarcasm there. Been a long day!

So, is it all the knock-ons that make success unlikely?

Just felt so angry at the time, and still do. Their complete lack of communication at the airport during the delay and subsequently was so frustrating. I could see the plane had diverted to Athens as I was tracking it on FlightRadar24 at the time, but they really dragged their heels over admitting this and sorting accommodation etc. We finally got to our hotel room at 2.30am with two wailing pre-schoolers.

And then the ridiculous delay the following day. We weren't flown out until 5pm in the evening!

Given the complexity, is it worth pursuing? I don't fancy DIY beyond issuing an NBA (if it's even worth it) due to the time element.

JPears

No, you're reading us wrong. The knocks on are the reason that Jet2 can't use these as an excuse. If they directly affected your flight that would be an EC.
But the weather didn't affect your actual flight.
And a tyre blowing is NOT an EC if it affects your flight or not.
Get claiming.

NoviceAngel

PomBear wrote: »

.......Given the complexity, is it worth pursuing? I don't fancy DIY beyond issuing an NBA (if it's even worth it) due to the time element.

I'll pick up on this bit, both myself and JP went down the DIY route with the help of other posters on here, I can only talk for myself but for me it was never about the payout, more anger and dismay at the lies told to me directly from J2, I made the time to claim and I did the research.

Others take a different view and will happily take something than nothing and let NWNF take over, only you can decide what route, if any, is right for you.

I've listened in Court to the stats given out by J2 barristers, over 50% of customers give up at the first fob off letter from J2, if you search my posts using the words 'bucket' you'll find posts by me highlighting how their complaint (fob off) system works.

If you've got the time and inclination then go for it, if not toss it over to NWNF, but if you've forgiven them, then walk away!

You've got a reasonable case, so I think you've got a good chance of success.

Cheers,

NoviceAngel

PomBear

Ahh, I see.

Weather affected the plane whilst it was operating the preceding flight.

Thanks so much. I'll get on to it.

Note what you say about CAA.

PomBear

And will also let you know how I get on.

pcyuljr

PomBear wrote: »

Would they not mention the tyre because they'd have been within the three hours if wind had been favourable for landing?

Good to see somebody else is involved with this fight. My MCOL was submitted on Sunday so I'm expecting to start the bundle prep soon.

I didn't really consider the knock on effects of the delay - basically we have at least 2 aircraft full of people (hopefully) entitled to compensation. Maybe the next flight after yours was delayed also. Where does it end???

Although I don't particularly have sympathy for Jet2, this was all caused by a flight tyre delay of 2hr 50mins and then the weather problems following it. 400 people wanting compensation makes it an expensive tyre!

JPears

Pombear can rely on 2 aspects in legal case. 1. Tyre blow is not EC as it is inherent in the operating of an airline. "In the alternative", a useful legal term, 2. Knock on effect of weather on a previous flight is not EC.
Pcy - you will have to rely on the argument that the tyre blowout is not an EC and it was the main cause (95%) of your delay.

pcyuljr

JPears wrote: »

Pombear can rely on 2 aspects in legal case. 1. Tyre blow is not EC as it is inherent in the operating of an airline. "In the alternative", a useful legal term, 2. Knock on effect of weather on a previous flight is not EC.
Pcy - you will have to rely on the argument that the tyre blowout is not an EC and it was the main cause (95%) of your delay.

Thanks for this, I'm trying to absorb everything I read at the moment, in prep for bundle creation - not easy when I'm still in 2013 on the Court Success thread! :eek:

I'd be interested in peoples thoughts around a tyre being blown being an EC. In my simpleton way, an aircraft tyre is a big, robust item. It wouldn't be burst by a single screw on the taxiway. As such, it leads me to lead to believe either the tyre was worn, substandard or the taxiway wasn't checked and correctly cleared. None of these are EC and I find it difficult to appreciate a viable argument for them fitting that criteria.

Obviously this only accounts for 2hrs 50min of the delay, I'm just working through each piece of the puzzle.